Skills, key to competitiveness (By Malick CISS) July 21, 2026
In a recent contribution entitled “Producing sometimes costs more. Giving up production often costs more”, economist Chérif Salif Sy addresses a theme which constitutes a crucial dilemma for economic sovereignty.
This is not the first time that this question has been asked in economic thinking. As he recalls, the British economist Adam Smith mentioned it in these terms: “It is useless to produce internally what costs less externally”. Seen from this angle, the equation seems very simple: rely on the invoice to decide whether to manufacture yourself or import. Revisiting history, Chérif Salif Sy reminds us that this equation should not always be approached from the sole angle of comparing costs. Producing, he continues, is, before being a matter of cost, acquiring qualifications, mastering techniques or technologies.
Kenneth Arrow’s theory thus maintains that learning through production further promotes innovation and strengthens competitiveness. The economist cites the example of South Korea, a country lacking mineral resources, which launched an integrated steelworks project in 1968, ignoring the contrary opinion of the World Bank. It only took a few decades for the company to become a juggernaut in the sector. To be competitive, you must first master your field through learning. “When a company closes because importing is cheaper, the savings made are immediately visible. The skills that will no longer be passed on and the sectors that will never be born do not appear in any profitability calculation. Renunciation has a cost. It is invisible, which does not mean that it is zero,” adds the Senegalese economist. If importing can be cheaper, producing locally creates jobs and shapes human resources.
But in Africa, economic performance always seems to have the last word. This is how the structural adjustment programs imposed by the Bretton Woods institutions during the 1980s and 1990s completely dismantled entire sections of the emerging industry in most African countries. For example, the textile industry, which was one of the flagships of the Senegalese economy, did not survive liberalization policies, in a context marked by disinvestment and competition from more competitive Asian products. Massive African imports of basic food products and manufactured products constitute, in principle, a way of making up for current deficits and weak infrastructure. They ensure the immediate availability of products to meet demand boosted by galloping population growth. But they create a rent economy which “concentrates resources and decision-making centers in a few hands, and shrinks the spaces where collective skills are acquired”.
“The tyranny of imports has led to a decline in investment in certain sectors, exposing the continent to increased vulnerability to global geopolitical crises. »
The tyranny of imports has led to a decline in investment in certain sectors, exposing the continent to high uncontrolled costs, a massive flight of currencies, but also to increased vulnerability to global geopolitical crises. For example, the recent blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, during the crisis between the American-Israeli coalition and Iran, was strongly felt in the countries of the South (shortage of fertilizer threatening food security, increase in maritime freight, inflation, etc.). The paradox is that the continent imports finished products resulting from the industrial processing of its own raw materials exported in their raw state. African leaders are aware of these vulnerabilities and consider it necessary to meet the needs of their populations through local production. It’s a question of sovereignty. But they still need to create a favorable and controlled ecosystem (adequate infrastructure, energy costs, etc.) in order to remain competitive. Otherwise, imported products will remain more competitive in their own markets.
